5 ms·

Remotely accessing an IP address inside a target computer is a search

dahdum 10y ago
Using his analogy it seems more like you sent an invitation which the fbi returned to sender with a gps device. The FBI didn't search the unsent letters, they returned one that sent itself.
- belorn 10y ago
  Where there not a similar case where then police bugged a car with a gps device, without a warrant, and the supreme court decided unanimously that police agencies must obtain search warrants before they can install GPS tracking devices on the vehicles of suspects? It also seems to miss the point. If a person has a hidden identity and a stalker breakers into the post officer in order to obtain the protected address, is the stalker committing a crime towards that person or can they just claim that addresses "is public" because the sender "voluntarily shared the information". The fact that the sender has protected identity should give a strong hint towards their intentions, even if the knowingly used the postal service. If the FBI used a sybil attack and only passively gleaned the information as the "letter" came past, rather than do a breaking and entering, would it change anything? We could still distill this legal issue as intentional protected information being knowingly intercepted without a warrant. It would be a interesting case, but first the court need to decide if planting malware on citizens computers need a warrant or not.
ZoF 10y ago
As an aside, if you're doing something on the internet that your nation(or another) deems illegal, using only TOR shouldn't be considered 'safe'(since before this incident). Always be going through at least a burner VPN purchased with prepaid-card(bought with cash) or bitcoin. I'd still recommend connecting to a box you can scrap, again, purchased anonymously, or 'found'(but not by an IP associated with you unless you plan to scrap it) before routing traffic through TOR. generally: -Don't keep old boxes. -Don't save shit you don't need, ever. -Don't do anything 'bad' from home or work, if absolutely necessary to be done in those locations use cash bought 3G. -Additional layers does not help if you can't add them with assured anonymity. If a box has been touched by anything that can trace back to yourself, it's dirty. Lastly, by 'illegal' things I mean leaking information that could get you killed, purchasing substances that are currently illegal, generally interfacing with the internet anonymously. If you're a pedo, get help; if you're producing pedo-porn, consider suicide.
- adventurer 10y ago
  I may be wrong, but I don't necessarily see this as a place to give tips about doing our getting away with illegal activities, even if it is directly related to the article.
  - xkcd-sucks 10y ago
    It's totally relevant-- Semantics of "hacker" aside, Uber and AirBnB are very successful companies built around breaking the law at large scale.
  - reefoctopus 10y ago
    I would argue that it is. There are plenty of cases where laws are unjust and should be broken. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran >Persecuted individuals are subject to surveillance by the "religious police," harassment, prolonged detention, mistreatment, torture, and execution.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    Sometimes the illegal choice is the ethical one. The main reason I posted this at all was because the article implies that properly configured TOR is safe. I personally would not trust it in the slightest against a well-funded, especially nation-state adversary. To be perfectly honest I'm fine with the karma loss, even with a ban; it will just mean it's time to move on.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  How about don't do illegal stuff period? As far as countries that consider anything illegal well that's a problem but these precautions won't really help if you are caught using VPN where it is illegal it's a crime in its own. Overall suggesting to use TOR for illegal activities is stupid, TOR has a bad enough rep as it is.
  - sathackr 10y ago
    One of the main purposes that Tor is often touted for is for use by people in oppressive regimes that have different views on human rights than us. This activity would very likely be illegal in those regimes. Even in the USA there is a long history of activists engaged in activities that were illegal at the time but morally correct(when viewed in hindsight, since morals shift over time) -- would your comment 'Don't do illegal stuff period?' apply to them as well? What would you suggest Tor be used for?
eveningcoffee 10y ago
I think that regardless of the touchy subject, the question of the author is fair as stated in the article: "Is there a limit on how many different places can be searched under a single warrant while still satisfying the requirement that the warrant describe the “place to be searched”? Can a single warrant justify a search of thousands or even (hypothetically) millions of computers, all used by different people who don’t know each other? At what point does the use of a single warrant to search many places make the warrant a general warrant that the Fourth Amendment prohibits?"

Using his analogy it seems more like you sent an invitation which the fbi returned to sender with a gps device. The FBI didn't search the unsent letters, they returned one that sent itself.

belorn 10y ago
Where there not a similar case where then police bugged a car with a gps device, without a warrant, and the supreme court decided unanimously that police agencies must obtain search warrants before they can install GPS tracking devices on the vehicles of suspects? It also seems to miss the point. If a person has a hidden identity and a stalker breakers into the post officer in order to obtain the protected address, is the stalker committing a crime towards that person or can they just claim that addresses "is public" because the sender "voluntarily shared the information". The fact that the sender has protected identity should give a strong hint towards their intentions, even if the knowingly used the postal service. If the FBI used a sybil attack and only passively gleaned the information as the "letter" came past, rather than do a breaking and entering, would it change anything? We could still distill this legal issue as intentional protected information being knowingly intercepted without a warrant. It would be a interesting case, but first the court need to decide if planting malware on citizens computers need a warrant or not.

ZoF 10y ago

As an aside, if you're doing something on the internet that your nation(or another) deems illegal, using only TOR shouldn't be considered 'safe'(since before this incident). Always be going through at least a burner VPN purchased with prepaid-card(bought with cash) or bitcoin. I'd still recommend connecting to a box you can scrap, again, purchased anonymously, or 'found'(but not by an IP associated with you unless you plan to scrap it) before routing traffic through TOR. generally: -Don't keep old boxes. -Don't save shit you don't need, ever. -Don't do anything 'bad' from home or work, if absolutely necessary to be done in those locations use cash bought 3G. -Additional layers does not help if you can't add them with assured anonymity. If a box has been touched by anything that can trace back to yourself, it's dirty. Lastly, by 'illegal' things I mean leaking information that could get you killed, purchasing substances that are currently illegal, generally interfacing with the internet anonymously. If you're a pedo, get help; if you're producing pedo-porn, consider suicide.

adventurer 10y ago
I may be wrong, but I don't necessarily see this as a place to give tips about doing our getting away with illegal activities, even if it is directly related to the article.
- xkcd-sucks 10y ago
  It's totally relevant-- Semantics of "hacker" aside, Uber and AirBnB are very successful companies built around breaking the law at large scale.
- reefoctopus 10y ago
  I would argue that it is. There are plenty of cases where laws are unjust and should be broken. Here's an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Iran >Persecuted individuals are subject to surveillance by the "religious police," harassment, prolonged detention, mistreatment, torture, and execution.
- ZoF 10y ago
  Sometimes the illegal choice is the ethical one. The main reason I posted this at all was because the article implies that properly configured TOR is safe. I personally would not trust it in the slightest against a well-funded, especially nation-state adversary. To be perfectly honest I'm fine with the karma loss, even with a ban; it will just mean it's time to move on.
dogma1138 10y ago
How about don't do illegal stuff period? As far as countries that consider anything illegal well that's a problem but these precautions won't really help if you are caught using VPN where it is illegal it's a crime in its own. Overall suggesting to use TOR for illegal activities is stupid, TOR has a bad enough rep as it is.
- sathackr 10y ago
  One of the main purposes that Tor is often touted for is for use by people in oppressive regimes that have different views on human rights than us. This activity would very likely be illegal in those regimes. Even in the USA there is a long history of activists engaged in activities that were illegal at the time but morally correct(when viewed in hindsight, since morals shift over time) -- would your comment 'Don't do illegal stuff period?' apply to them as well? What would you suggest Tor be used for?

eveningcoffee 10y ago

I think that regardless of the touchy subject, the question of the author is fair as stated in the article: "Is there a limit on how many different places can be searched under a single warrant while still satisfying the requirement that the warrant describe the “place to be searched”? Can a single warrant justify a search of thousands or even (hypothetically) millions of computers, all used by different people who don’t know each other? At what point does the use of a single warrant to search many places make the warrant a general warrant that the Fourth Amendment prohibits?"